Water charges revisited?

Edward M

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What an excellent rebuttal, and as regards being "called out" when a so called legal whiz kid gets so much wrong their arguments been reducedto pathetic pedantry with attempting to split hairs between a charge and a penalty in a desperate attempt to be right about something - I'll let yourself and the other lemon suckers stew.

Fg screwed the project up.

Stop looking for others to blame.

That's about the size of it, they screwed it up!
It doesent mean the basic premise was or is wrong.
What disappoints me anyway, is that the others used this to be populist and say charges were wrong.
The fact that what has happened is really the pushing back of actual work in real time by lumping this back in to general taxation dissent help the general water infrastructure one bit doesent seem to matter one whit to anyone.
While FG/Labour basically did screw up, the fact is the opposing politicians screwed up too, they should have countered with a better way of doing the necessary, but they didn't, they basically just left us with the status quo, that will solve nothing.
We will still have a sieve of a system now for decades, if not longer.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

That's about the size of it, they screwed it up!
It doesent mean the basic premise was or is wrong.
What disappoints me anyway, is that the others used this to be populist and say charges were wrong.
The fact that what has happened is really the pushing back of actual work in real time by lumping this back in to general taxation dissent help the general water infrastructure one bit doesent seem to matter one whit to anyone.
While FG/Labour basically did screw up, the fact is the opposing politicians screwed up too, they should have countered with a better way of doing the necessary, but they didn't, they basically just left us with the status quo, that will solve nothing.
We will still have a sieve of a system now for decades, if not longer.

Absolutely, I mean theoretically the premise of water being a valuable resource, and people deemed to be wasting it, should be sanctioned by way of a penalty/ charge.

In theory, yes it was and still is a sound plan.

But the practicalities of now ever rolling out those plans have sadly been lost, for generations, and for no other reason than the monumental screw up by FG and labour.

It was badly concocted, badly implemented, and tinkered with so incompetently (don't mention the conservation grant) that it was always destined for failure.

€2Billion - at a time when the state faced record homelessness and a record health crisis.

The Comical Ali's of the site will have you believe that charges aren't really gone, and their return is imminent.

I view their sentiments like I look at a toddler clutching its security blanket.

They want to blame Murphy, Gerry Adam's, Ogle, Martin, people on the street etc etc, while the dogs on the street know who was really responsible for the clusterfcuk.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The €5.5bn to 2021 is what Irish Water was going to do and it is them that's doing it currently, but that's down from €9.2bn (€8bn initial proposal plus the 1.22bn that was supposed to happen 2014-2016), so we're down €3.7bn with the added good measure of it being counted on the government balance sheet - so with increased surplus since 2016, we're probably just about breaking even.

With €3.7bn less spent on water infrastructure and €5.5bn that could have been spent elsewhere.

Yay?

People don't seem to understand how this works.
The CER did not approve any proposal by IW to invest €9.2bn, 14bn or 64bn.

The CER did approve a €5.5bn investment plan.
That is the current investment plan.

And according to the political masters behind water charges, it was one of the best plans they'd ever stumbled across.

You were asked to show what has been cancelled after you suggested that infrastructure work is not going ahead as planned in the wake of charges being abolished.

Still waiting.
Yay?

The Bishop Basher

The back peddling, barrel scraping and straw clutching by the pro water tax people on this thread is becoming farcical.

No one is fooled bar yourselves.

The nation spoke and the result was clear..

FG lost 26 seats and Labour were annihilated as a direct consequence of this mess.

Good loser wrote: »

On another tack I wonder if a constitutional action was brought by those who are currently paying privately for water, while those on mains substantially pay nothing, on the basis that it was against the provision that all should be treated equally, would it succeed?

At least a third of us can never be metered so good luck with that particular straw clutching exercise..

Remove any notions of everyone being treated equally.

Life isn't fair.

Have you ever though about changing your user name

Quin_Dub

Rennaws wrote: »

The back peddling, barrel scraping and straw clutching by the pro water tax people on this thread is becoming farcical.

No one is fooled bar yourselves.

The nation spoke and the result was clear..

FG lost 26 seats and Labour were annihilated as a direct consequence of this mess.

To be fair , there were lots of reasons why FG/Labour got cleaned out at the last Election however Water charges was not one of them.

At the time only something in the order of 10% of voters stated that Water Charges were a key factor in their voting choices.

McMurphy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To be fair , there were lots of reasons why FG/Labour got cleaned out at the last Election however Water charges was not one of them.

At the time only something in the order of 10% of voters stated that Water Charges were a key factor in their voting choices.

The writing was on the wall when they got annihilated in the local elections but they were too arrogant not to wind their necks in a bit.

After that kicking , most people could see what was waiting for them in the general election.

Quin_Dub

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The writing was on the wall when they got annihilated in the local elections but they were too arrogant not to wind their necks in a bit.

After that kicking , most people could see what was waiting for them in the general election.

Absolutely , like I said , lots and lots of reasons why they lost heavily, but Water charges simply weren't a key factor in the majority of peoples decision making process.

BarryD2

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It would not, because then you would be faced with the problem that urban dwellers were subsidising others via property tax.

There is also the conundrum of annual subsidies paid by way of grants that the private payers receive.

Lastly, they're all treated equally regardless.

Constantly whinging on here, (always in the small hours) about people paying privately for water, and how everyone should be treated equally is laughable.

Everyone in the state is treated equally, the public mains was paid for and maintained by the state, and is there for any citizen to avail of.

There is nothing stopping you upping sticks, and moving into a house connected to the public mains, and being treated equally to everyone and anyone else on it.

We can only hope that you come to wallow in the misery of a collapse of domestic water supplies by Irish Water. When your family, friends and neighbours tell you to stop spouting this ridiculous nonsense and that they are fed up fetching cans and bottles of water from tankers. Fed up with a full jacks and no means to flush it. etc etc.

There were and are TWO clear advantages to metered water charges.

1) to encourage moderate and not wasteful consumption.

2) to pay something towards the repairing of leaks, upgrading and general investment that is needed to supply YOU water.

The rest of us, paying for the provision of water, are doing just that. We pay for own water and we therefore use it carefully.

FreudianSlippers

Good loser wrote: »

The proposal is framed, I believe, to capture 8% of domestic users. Are you saying you think this will be enough to satisfy the WFD?

I'm not positive, but I do believe that it is arguable that it satisfies the "polluter pays principle" aspect of the WFD at least.

The 213,000l.p.a. is IIRC an average usage amount based on the average household which the government is paying for to Irish Water. Use above that will be charged directly to the consumer.

It's not too far off the original model which satisfied the WFD.

On another tack I wonder if a constitutional action was brought by those who are currently paying privately for water, while those on mains substantially pay nothing, on the basis that it was against the provision that all should be treated equally, would it succeed?

It certainly would be arguable!

EDIT: Sorry didn't see the "would it succeed" part. No I don't think it would be successful because the case law affords the right to the State to make exceptiosn based on public policy, land use, etc. their argument would be that (i) they're unable to supply mains water to the entire country (ii) local water schemes are subsidized and probably (iii) one can't divide up (necessarily) the portion of tax that goes specifically to provision of water to / removal from domestic premises (i.e. that Irish Water does a lot of other things).

As an aside, are septic tanks subsidized?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What an excellent rebuttal, and as regards being "called out" when a so called legal whiz kid gets so much wrong their arguments been reducedto pathetic pedantry with attempting to split hairs between a charge and a penalty in a desperate attempt to be right about something - I'll let yourself and the other lemon suckers stew.

Ok, let's say the disagreement boils down to "pathetic pedantry" (and agree to disagree with that - what else have I been wrong about, let alone for you to make the wild and spurious assertion that I get "so much wrong"?

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

People don't seem to understand how this works.
The CER did not approve any proposal by IW to invest €9.2bn, 14bn or 64bn.

I have never made that claim.

The CER did approve a €5.5bn investment plan.
That is the current investment plan.

Ok.

And according to the political masters behind water charges, it was one of the best plans they'd ever stumbled across.

Ok?

You were asked to show what has been cancelled after you suggested that infrastructure work is not going ahead as planned in the wake of charges being abolished.

Still waiting.
Yay?

As I said - Irish Water was going to do €8bn worth of work in addition to the €1.9bn approved by the CER in the same time frame as the CRU agreed €5.5bn that they're actually doing.

Unless you're making the claim that Irish Water is so efficient under the Local Authority model that they're doing the same work for €3bn+ less?

McMurphy

Oh dear, there's so much wrong in this post, its hard to know where to start.

First of....

BarryD2 wrote: »

We can only hope that you come to wallow in the misery of a collapse of domestic water supplies by Irish Water. When your family, friends and neighbours tell you to stop spouting this ridiculous nonsense and that they are fed up fetching cans and bottles of water from tankers. Fed up with a full jacks and no means to flush it. etc etc.

You maybe missed the various posts where I state that the idea of charging people who waste water an being a good idea, so you can cut with this nonsense.

In fact, I repeated my thoughts just a few posts above.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Absolutely, I mean theoretically the premise of water being a valuable resource, and people deemed to be wasting it, should be sanctioned by way of a penalty/ charge.

In theory, yes it was and still is a sound plan.

But the practicalities of now ever rolling out those plans have sadly been lost, for generations, and for no other reason than the monumental screw up by FG and labour.

And then this.

There were and are TWO clear advantages to metered water charges.

1) to encourage moderate and not wasteful consumption.

2) to pay something towards the repairing of leaks, upgrading and general investment that is needed to supply YOU water.

The rest of us, paying for the provision of water, are doing just that. We pay for own water and we therefore use it carefully.

Can you link me to any source, anywhere that says Irish people are wasteful towards water?

Did it not emerge that in fact , we're actually amongst the lowest consumers of water in the EC, despite not directly charged for it?

Did I not rag just this week that Irish water praised the public for heeding their pleas to conserve water in this current heat wave? (Despite it being "free")

You keep harping on about paying privately for water, yet I remind you that people paying privately get annual subsidy grants to help fund it.

If you're feeling a bit aggrieved at paying for water, may I suggest getting yourself a home in an urban area, but be prepared to lose a lot of quietness and serenity, possibly some privacy too.

Oh, and also, you will have to deal with a much higher lpt, because a portion of it will be going to subsidise the rural dwellers, many of whom have private water supplies.

It's swings and roundabouts Bar.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said - Irish Water was going to do €8bn worth of work in addition to the €1.9bn approved by the CER in the same time frame as the CRU agreed €5.5bn that they're actually doing.

When was this €8bn of infrastructure investment initially announced and then cancelled?
I can only recall the €5.5bn CIP package being announced.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If you have any semblance of understanding of the reality of Irish politics, then you would understand how important being off the books is.

Sewage treatment plants aren't sexy photoshoots, so the politicians spend the infrastructure money on roads, schools and hospitals instead. That is what nearly 80 of the last 100 years of FF gives us. So, Irish Water will never get the investment needed from the centre.

The original system of water charges is still in place. All that has happened is that the threshold for free water has been pushed so high that most people can waste as much as they want. It will change, events such as climate change and drought ensure that it will.

That's my point. On one day we need rebuild the water infrastructure post haste on another day, it can wait, being off the books is the important thing.
Sexy or not, if any of these politicians were genuinely concerned about water infrastructure it would be sorted. When it's genuinely important to them it gets done, regardless of how it's viewed, (see Irish Water).

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Didn't you allocate this money for social housing? And loads more?



Spending the same money twice - much like paying for water twice!

Oh, they took my advice and put it towards social housing? My bad :rolleyes:

tayto lover

It's just unfortunate that the Water Charges didn't come before the Property Tax. If it had we would have paid for water and protested and blocked the Property Tax. Only one of them was going to go through because the working man was suffering by only getting approx half of what he earned. He had had enough.

James Brown

tayto lover wrote: »

It's just unfortunate that the Water Charges didn't come before the Property Tax. If it had we would have paid for water and protested and blocked the Property Tax. Only one of them was going to go through because the working man was suffering by only getting approx half of what he earned. He had had enough.

On the surface it looked like the government, (local/national) was mismanaging the housekeeping and looking to create a charge to make up for their inadequacies. This is were the paying twice comes in. Despite the horrendously bad timing, quango, cronyism and sweet deal under investigation, that would have been enough to scuttle it. And so it will be anytime any general charge for usage is attempted. Coupled with the fact many don't trust these people have their best interest at heart, which sadly, gets proven time and again.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On the surface it looked like the government, (local/national) was mismanaging the housekeeping and looking to create a charge to make up for their inadequacies. This is were the paying twice comes in. Despite the horrendously bad timing, quango, cronyism and sweet deal under investigation, that would have been enough to scuttle it. And so it will be anytime any general charge for usage is attempted. Coupled with the fact many don't trust these people have their best interest at heart, which sadly, gets proven time and again.

That's the simple suggestion I suppose.
But looking logically its not the case.
What you are suggesting is that the govt does nothing for the public unless there's something in it for them or their crony's.
We have many crises, we've been and are continuing to discuss them, do you think there's enough money in the kitty to fix them all other than the govt can't see any advantage for them or crony's to fix these problems?
I think personally that if it was that easy to fix the problems we have, that given the votes involved, any govt would just do it.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What an excellent rebuttal, and as regards being "called out" when a so called legal whiz kid gets so much wrong their arguments been reducedto pathetic pedantry with attempting to split hairs between a charge and a penalty in a desperate attempt to be right about something - I'll let yourself and the other lemon suckers stew.

Fg screwed the project up.

Stop looking for others to blame.

Have you really thought through what you are saying here.

FG implemented a change in their policy by increasing the threshold. They did so because they had no option as they were a minority government and FF, SF, PBP and many independents told them that they should.

So FG are to blame for following the bad advice and ridiculous policies of the other parties, but you are absolving the other parties of responsibility for the ridiculous policies?

Come off it, that is the ultimate cop-out. FG did what the others wanted, so FG are to blame for it not being right. Seriously?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On the surface it looked like the government, (local/national) was mismanaging the housekeeping and looking to create a charge to make up for their inadequacies. This is were the paying twice comes in. Despite the horrendously bad timing, quango, cronyism and sweet deal under investigation, that would have been enough to scuttle it. And so it will be anytime any general charge for usage is attempted. Coupled with the fact many don't trust these people have their best interest at heart, which sadly, gets proven time and again.

Can the disingenuous use of the phrase "paying twice" be stopped?

We have never paid in full for investment in water services so how can we have paid twice?

We may have paid from different sources, but we pay from different sources for most public services. We pay twice for education, we pay twice for health, we pay twice for passports, we pay twice for driving licences, we pay twice for planning departments. It was the stupidest catchphrase of the whole Irish Water debate, and I am of the opinion that those who are still using it are demonstrating a clear inability to understand how the public sector works.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Can the disingenuous use of the phrase "paying twice" be stopped?

As soon as the repeated nonsense that it is everyone's fault but FG, which created the mess that is IW.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

That's the simple suggestion I suppose.
But looking logically its not the case.
What you are suggesting is that the govt does nothing for the public unless there's something in it for them or their crony's.
We have many crises, we've been and are continuing to discuss them, do you think there's enough money in the kitty to fix them all other than the govt can't see any advantage for them or crony's to fix these problems?...

I'm stating many do not give the state the benefit of the doubt based on past experience. If the politicians of the day are pushing for something, sadly, there is often something in it for vested interests beyond good PR and kudos.
Now you are suggesting that I believe all the crises can be solved by simply throwing money at them, this is certainly not the case with health and not the case with housing/homelessness. Ultimately it's about allocation of the monies we have and reorganising 'the way we do business'.

Edward M wrote: »

.....
I think personally that if it was that easy to fix the problems we have, that given the votes involved, any govt would just do it.

I disagree. If you look at housing, the crisis is exacerbated by policy relying on a variation of the trickle down myth, 'If we make it easier for developers to build more houses, eventually there'll be enough people can afford'. This isn't working and I'm confident they know this but continue anyway for reasons best known to themselves and their backers while the tax bill increases.
Irish Water is a perfect example. They left the infrastructure to fester. The LA's were under funded. Even back in the last boom when it was all spikes and millennium clocks. We were looking for fun things to spend money on. IMO, the only reason they created the quango of Irish Water, was to generate money, 'look after their own' and arguably set up someone with a nice little earner of a state contract, because that's what we got.
These issues are not an easy fix, but following policies that see them become worse and more expensive for the tax payer year on year, doesn't seem to be the way to go.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Can the disingenuous use of the phrase "paying twice" be stopped?

We have never paid in full for investment in water services so how can we have paid twice?

We may have paid from different sources, but we pay from different sources for most public services. We pay twice for education, we pay twice for health, we pay twice for passports, we pay twice for driving licences, we pay twice for planning departments. It was the stupidest catchphrase of the whole Irish Water debate, and I am of the opinion that those who are still using it are demonstrating a clear inability to understand how the public sector works.

Cut the nonsense.
Money from general taxation goes to water. A charge for water would go towards water, (at some point possibly).
Can you stop fudging? There's a difference between paying a second time and stating because it's not fully funded you're not really paying at all.
This is the state you have issue with. If a landlord asks you for rent and you pay it, you just paid rent, even if the landlord toddles off and spends it on the horses rather than his mortgage.

Landlord: You owe me 2000 for rent. Now the rent covers your use of the house, including the garden, gutters, mail box etc.
Tenant: Here you go chief.
Landlord: I need to charge you for the gutters. House needs new gutters. It'll be an ongoing gutter charge.
Tenant: Shouldn't that come out of the rent?
Landlord: Well the last landlord didn't look after the gutters and now they are in a terrible state. There's no magic money tree y'know.
Tenant: But I already pay for gutters?
Landlord: Who are you, ISIS?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you really thought through what you are saying here.

FG implemented a change in their policy by increasing the threshold. They did so because they had no option as they were a minority government and FF, SF, PBP and many independents told them that they should.

So FG are to blame for following the bad advice and ridiculous policies of the other parties, but you are absolving the other parties of responsibility for the ridiculous policies?

Come off it, that is the ultimate cop-out. FG did what the others wanted, so FG are to blame for it not being right. Seriously?

I thought they followed the advice of the expert commission, they put together

stop blaming others for their mess

The current water charges regime has been formally abolished after the Dail accepted the report of the Oireachtas committee on water charges by 96 votes to 48.

This is getting tiresome.

Comical Ali doesn't get a look in with some round here.

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

When was this €8bn of infrastructure investment initially announced and then cancelled?
I can only recall the €5.5bn CIP package being announced.

I actually can't seem to find it - it was in on of the initial IW plans but those seem to have been scrubbed from the website.

It was definitely reported elsewhere, but it'd be a lot of digging to find it so forget it.

Hitman3000

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I actually can't seem to find it - it was in on of the initial IW plans but those seem to have been scrubbed from the website.

The PPS requirement was also 'scrubbed' from their website including the little nugget that PPS numbers were to be considered a saleable asset.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I actually can't seem to find it - it was in on of the initial IW plans but those seem to have been scrubbed from the website.

It was definitely reported elsewhere, but it'd be a lot of digging to find it so forget it.

Yes OK, it may have been one of those figures that was just floated at some stage.


The point I was making is that the €5.5bn investment to run from 14 to 21 was announced on the back of a charging regime and the lack of charges has not affected that.


Here is an engineer speaking in 2015 about the need for political will to ensure that investment would occur.

Our €5.5 billion programme of investment is a nationally vital project designed to give Ireland a safe, world-class supply of a product even more basic than electricity – clean water and efficient sanitation.

Sounds like it'll solve all our problems.



I hope he will now congratulate the politicians on their will to implement this amazing plan without charges.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/irish-water-we-need-political-consensus-to-implement-5-5bn-water-services-plan-1.2293666?mode=amp

James Brown

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The PPS requirement was also 'scrubbed' from their website including the little nugget that PPS numbers were to be considered a saleable asset.

I'd forgot all about that gem. Fuppin' Paul Murphy!

GreeBo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Cut the nonsense.
Money from general taxation goes to water. A charge for water would go towards water, (at some point possibly).
Can you stop fudging? There's a difference between paying a second time and stating because it's not fully funded you're not really paying at all.
This is the state you have issue with. If a landlord asks you for rent and you pay it, you just paid rent, even if the landlord toddles off and spends it on the horses rather than his mortgage.

Landlord: You owe me 2000 for rent. Now the rent covers your use of the house, including the garden, gutters, mail box etc.
Tenant: Here you go chief.
Landlord: I need to charge you for the gutters. House needs new gutters. It'll be an ongoing gutter charge.
Tenant: Shouldn't that come out of the rent?
Landlord: Well the last landlord didn't look after the gutters and now they are in a terrible state. There's no magic money tree y'know.
Tenant: But I already pay for gutters?
Landlord: Who are you, ISIS?

Your argument makes no sense.
You are not paying twice.
If your dinner costs €50, paying €20 in cash and €20 by card still didn't cover the cost and you are still not paying twice.

Jump_In_Jack

The proposal for water charges was ridiculous,
The government wanted to raise an extra chunk of money without raising taxes,
They thought they could fool people into paying extra charges to invest more money into the water supply infrastructure without admitting that they could already fund the difference out of taxation by raising taxes.
It was beyond dumb.
Everyone knew it was an extra unwanted tax, but they kept calling it a charge.
If they had made an announcement that they needed to raise taxes to fund Irish Water there would probably have been enough support to get it into the budget.
At least a bit of honesty wouldn’t have hurt the campaign.
The whole idea about installing water meters was a load of rubbish, people knew that this had the potential to be turned into a private company resource and people would sooner or later have been paying extortionate amounts for a natural resource which we have in abundance if we could fix the leaky pipes.
We need to get the leaks fixed and the government needs to start funding it and raising taxes to pay for it as necessary.

Sheeps

They should be funding it with council money raised through all the extra funds they'll be getting from local property tax this time around. That's what the property tax is for.

Good loser

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To be fair , there were lots of reasons why FG/Labour got cleaned out at the last Election however Water charges was not one of them.

At the time only something in the order of 10% of voters stated that Water Charges were a key factor in their voting choices.

Correct except on one point - the figure was 3%, not 10%.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It would not, because then you would be faced with the problem that urban dwellers were subsidising others via property tax.

There is also the conundrum of annual subsidies paid by way of grants that the private payers receive.

Lastly, they're all treated equally regardless.

Constantly whinging on here, (always in the small hours) about people paying privately for water, and how everyone should be treated equally is laughable.

Everyone in the state is treated equally, the public mains was paid for and maintained by the state, and is there for any citizen to avail of.

There is nothing stopping you upping sticks, and moving into a house connected to the public mains, and being treated equally to everyone and anyone else on it.

Just the same as public beaches in Kerry are free to be enjoyed by those in Kerry, or those in Monaghan.

Johnny, whatever brought you to the absurd conclusion that my house is not connected to the mains?

Good loser

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not positive, but I do believe that it is arguable that it satisfies the "polluter pays principle" aspect of the WFD at least.

The 213,000l.p.a. is IIRC an average usage amount based on the average household which the government is paying for to Irish Water. Use above that will be charged directly to the consumer.

It's not too far off the original model which satisfied the WFD.


It certainly would be arguable!

EDIT: Sorry didn't see the "would it succeed" part. No I don't think it would be successful because the case law affords the right to the State to make exceptiosn based on public policy, land use, etc. their argument would be that (i) they're unable to supply mains water to the entire country (ii) local water schemes are subsidized and probably (iii) one can't divide up (necessarily) the portion of tax that goes specifically to provision of water to / removal from domestic premises (i.e. that Irish Water does a lot of other things).

As an aside, are septic tanks subsidized?

Thanks F S.


I would think 8% would be much too low to satisfy them. We'll see in due course.


Regarding (ii) those schemes are, I believe, subsidized only as to capital and probably only half the private supply comes from such schemes.


I think septic tanks are subsidized if one upgrades before inspection but if one fails an inspection there is no subsidy for upgrading.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Oh dear, there's so much wrong in this post, its hard to know where to start.

First of....


You maybe missed the various posts where I state that the idea of charging people who waste water an being a good idea, so you can cut with this nonsense.

In fact, I repeated my thoughts just a few posts above.




And then this.


Can you link me to any source, anywhere that says Irish people are wasteful towards water?

Did it not emerge that in fact , we're actually amongst the lowest consumers of water in the EC, despite not directly charged for it?

Did I not rag just this week that Irish water praised the public for heeding their pleas to conserve water in this current heat wave? (Despite it being "free")

You keep harping on about paying privately for water, yet I remind you that people paying privately get annual subsidy grants to help fund it.

If you're feeling a bit aggrieved at paying for water, may I suggest getting yourself a home in an urban area, but be prepared to lose a lot of quietness and serenity, possibly some privacy too.

Oh, and also, you will have to deal with a much higher lpt, because a portion of it will be going to subsidise the rural dwellers, many of whom have private water supplies.

It's swings and roundabouts Bar.

You're chancing your arm again Johnny, aren't you?

Good loser

Edward M wrote: »

That's the simple suggestion I suppose.
But looking logically its not the case.
What you are suggesting is that the govt does nothing for the public unless there's something in it for them or their crony's.
We have many crises, we've been and are continuing to discuss them, do you think there's enough money in the kitty to fix them all other than the govt can't see any advantage for them or crony's to fix these problems?
I think personally that if it was that easy to fix the problems we have, that given the votes involved, any govt would just do it.

Matt's a conspiracist plain and simple.


He can even see around corners!

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

You're chancing your arm again Johnny, aren't you?

He's not actually, Selfbuild. ie has information on grants to group water schemes and single dwellings.

Good loser

Hitman3000 wrote: »

He's not actually, Selfbuild. ie has information on grants to group water schemes and single dwellings.

He is actually. There are no annual subsidy grants.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Cut the nonsense.
Money from general taxation goes to water. A charge for water would go towards water, (at some point possibly).
Can you stop fudging? There's a difference between paying a second time and stating because it's not fully funded you're not really paying at all.
This is the state you have issue with. If a landlord asks you for rent and you pay it, you just paid rent, even if the landlord toddles off and spends it on the horses rather than his mortgage.

Landlord: You owe me 2000 for rent. Now the rent covers your use of the house, including the garden, gutters, mail box etc.
Tenant: Here you go chief.
Landlord: I need to charge you for the gutters. House needs new gutters. It'll be an ongoing gutter charge.
Tenant: Shouldn't that come out of the rent?
Landlord: Well the last landlord didn't look after the gutters and now they are in a terrible state. There's no magic money tree y'know.
Tenant: But I already pay for gutters?
Landlord: Who are you, ISIS?

This 'paying twice' stuff is/was utter nonsense. This was an 'argument' from the early days before IW was formed. Each and every move then by IW/Govt was added to an ever growing list of 'reasons' (all spurious) as the months went by.


Your little example is specious.
How about this?
Landlord says to tenant you have lived rent free in my house for x years and now I want you to pay €500 per annum.
The house corresponding to the supply of water.


A better example might be

Bank provides me with an overdraft facility - free for many years.
And then introduces a charge of €x per 3 months.

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

He is actually. There are no annual subsidy grants.

There is, housing.gov.ie.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

Johnny, whatever brought you to the absurd conclusion that my house is not connected to the mains?

I didn't, my post was generic.

Good loser wrote: »

You're chancing your arm again Johnny, aren't you?

Not at all, but yet again you're letting your self down by your lack of knowledge and research on a subject you post so much about.

An annual subsidy is available for the running costs of the group water scheme. This must be approved by the local authority. The amount of subsidy is 100% of the qualifying expenditure up to the following limits:

€70 for each house supplied from a from a local authority source (public mains)
€140 for each house supplied from a private source (such as a private well)
Where a group scheme has provided its own water treatment plant under a Design, Build, Operate (DBO) contract, a new subsidy will be paid to cover the full production cost of treated water for domestic use.

source

In fact, it was actually hot news quite recently.

Minister Murphy announces increased supports for rural water services

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Eoghan Murphy, T.D., has today 15 December, 2017 announced a range of measures aimed at improving rural water services. The changes will come into effect from January 1st 2018. The Minister said that the package of measures will bring greater equity and fairness for rural water users and will ensure that domestic members of group water schemes get comparable benefits to those being served by the public supply through Irish Water. In addition to the increased subsidies, the Minister announced a review of wider investment needs of rural water services, which is to commence in early 2018.

Looks like the rural dwellers might be so engrossed on whinging online about the gross unfairness of having private schemes, they are unaware of the equity measures going on.

Reminds me in the "old man waves fist at cloud" meme tbh.

aido79

tayto lover wrote: »

It's just unfortunate that the Water Charges didn't come before the Property Tax. If it had we would have paid for water and protested and blocked the Property Tax. Only one of them was going to go through because the working man was suffering by only getting approx half of what he earned. He had had enough.

Only people who own property pay property tax so not really a fair way of doing it. People with private wells pay property tax and don't use Irish water's services.
Nobody unless they are earning over €600,000 is paying half their wages in tax. A person on €100,000 pays around 39% of their wages in tax.

facehugger99

tayto lover wrote: »

It's just unfortunate that the Water Charges didn't come before the Property Tax. If it had we would have paid for water and protested and blocked the Property Tax. Only one of them was going to go through because the working man was suffering by only getting approx half of what he earned. He had had enough.

I think the 'non-working' man was always the more vociferous of the protest element.

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

I think the 'non-working' man was always the more vociferous of the protest element.

The "non working man" wouldn't be considered a traditional FG voter.

Why do you think FG bucked and bent to satisfy people who would never vote for them?

That's a silly comment tbh.

dense

facehugger99 wrote: »

I think the 'non-working' man was always the more vociferous of the protest element.

You mean it was they who were most likely to be chanting "Peaceful protest"?


I'd agree.

Grab All Association

€168 million of unpaid water rates from businesses throughout the country.

That’s € 1 6 8 , 0 0 0, 0 0 0

The local authorities were never at this scale of incompetence.

Source Sunday Business Post

Paywall

GreeBo

Grab All Association wrote: »

€168 million of unpaid water rates from businesses throughout the country.

That’s € 1 6 8 , 0 0 0, 0 0 0

The local authorities were never at this scale of incompetence.

Source Sunday Business Post

Paywall

Do you have the figures that back up your assertion?

dense

Grab All Association wrote: »

€168 million of unpaid water rates from businesses throughout the country.

That’s € 1 6 8 , 0 0 0, 0 0 0

The local authorities were never at this scale of incompetence.

Source Sunday Business Post

Paywall

IW inherited €156,000,000 in unpaid water rates from local authorities.



https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/councils-owed-at-least-156m-in-water-levies-258962.html

Cookie_Monster

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't feel I should have to point it out at this stage, but apparently I do: We don't just drink rainwater.

I do Straight off the roof into a tank.

It would also be a stupidly easy option to implement for hundreds of thousand of households tbh as another way to allow for usage. Roof collection, slimline 3-5k litre tanks and some filters.
Should be manditory on all new build to have some form of roof collection, storage and usage systems tbh.

Don't get me wrong, i fully support water charges and proper investment in infrastructure but in tandem with the above.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you really thought through what you are saying here.

Ditto.

FG implemented a change in their policy by increasing the threshold. They did so because they had no option as they were a minority government and FF, SF, PBP and many independents told them that they should.

Just coming back to this one.

You're clearly confused, because so far as I recall, the threshold debacles were raised/lowered/adjusted by FG while they were in govt with labour.

Far from being a minority govt, they had the seats to railroad legislation in with little or no debate.

So FG are to blame for following the bad advice and ridiculous policies of the other parties, but you are absolving the other parties of responsibility for the ridiculous policies?

Come off it, that is the ultimate cop-out. FG did what the others wanted, so FG are to blame for it not being right. Seriously?

See above, this blame everyone and anyone else Craic is getting very tiresome.